How Russian courts approach defending a Russian trademark portfolio: a practice note

Unlike many common-law systems, which consolidate trademark enforcement in a single general court, Russian law routes IP disputes through a layered network of specialist and general commercial courts — each with distinct jurisdiction, procedural rules, and evidentiary standards. For in-house counsel at a foreign company holding a Russian trademark portfolio, understanding how that network operates is not merely useful background: it is the first condition of defending the portfolio effectively. Mis-filing a claim, missing the applicable limitation window, or omitting a required pre-trial step can foreclose a remedy entirely. This guide sets out the five procedural stages that typically govern trademark defence in Russia, from portfolio audit to post-judgment protection.

What to prepare before instructing counsel

Before litigation proceedings are initiated in Russia, in-house counsel should have the following materials available:

• Rospatent registration certificates for each mark in scope, including renewal confirmations
• Proof of genuine commercial use of each mark in Russia within the past three years (invoices, distribution agreements, product documentation in Russian)
• Evidence of the infringing act: screenshots with dates and URL paths, physical samples, purchase records, customs declarations where available
• Corporate authorisation documents for the Russian entity or representative who will appear as claimant
• Power of attorney executed before a Russian notary (for foreign claimants acting through a Russian representative)
• A clear record of the date on which the infringing activity first came to the claimant's attention

The last item is not administrative formality. Under Russian civil procedure, the limitation period for intellectual property claims runs from the date of actual or constructive knowledge of the infringement. For in-house counsel managing a Russian trademark portfolio, that clock starts earlier than many assume — often from the moment a monitoring service first flags an infringing listing or a distributor first reports a counterfeit sighting. Allowing that period to pass without action can extinguish the right to claim.

If you are assessing the limitation position on a Russian trademark matter — make an enquiry: info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp/Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76

Defending a Russian trademark portfolio is not the same as initiating it. Before any formal step is taken, the in-house team must confirm which marks are at risk and whether each is in a position to sustain litigation. In Russia, a registered trademark that has not been put to genuine use for any continuous three-year period is vulnerable to cancellation by the respondent as a defence to an infringement claim. A foreign company that files an infringement claim, only to have the respondent counter-claim for non-use cancellation, may find itself simultaneously defending the underlying registration and pursuing the infringer — with both proceedings running in parallel across different forums.

The audit should therefore address three questions for each mark in scope. First: is the registration current and does it cover the goods or services class in which the infringement has occurred? Second: is there documented commercial use in Russia within the past three years that counsel can put before the court? Third: are there co-existing registrations by third parties in adjacent classes that the respondent could rely on to challenge the claimant's priority?

For in-house counsel managing a portfolio across several classes and sub-classes, this exercise is more time-consuming than it appears. Russian class boundaries sometimes differ from the Nice Classification as applied in other jurisdictions — particularly for technology products, software services, and composite goods. Confirming coverage before filing is significantly less costly than discovering a gap after the respondent raises it in their statement of defence.

The firm acted, in a recent matter, for the Russian subsidiary of a European consumer goods manufacturer whose core marks had been used exclusively on packaging produced outside Russia. The subsidiary had no Russian-language invoices and no locally-issued customs declarations for the relevant period. The registration was defensible, but only after expedited use-documentation work that added both cost and delay to the proceedings. Earlier internal audit would have identified and remedied the gap.

The answer depends on the nature of the dispute — and in Russia, two types of dispute arise frequently in the same matter.

Administrative challenges to trademark registrations — including opposition, non-use cancellation, and bad-faith cancellation — are lodged with the Chamber for Patent Disputes at Rospatent in the first instance. Decisions of the Chamber are subject to judicial review before the IP Court (Суд по интеллектуальным правам) sitting as a court of first instance for IP administrative matters. The IP Court is a federal specialised court with nationwide jurisdiction; it does not sit in regional locations, and proceedings before it require Russian patent attorneys or advocates with the relevant specialist qualification.

Infringement claims — where the claimant seeks damages, a prohibition order, or seizure of infringing goods — are brought before the commercial courts (arbitrazh courts) of general jurisdiction at first instance. The IP Court hears cassation appeals from arbitrazh courts in IP matters, making it the effective final word on questions of trademark law (subject to further supervisory review by the Supreme Court in exceptional cases).

The practical implication for in-house counsel is that a single enforcement campaign against a bad-faith registrant may require simultaneous proceedings in two forums: a cancellation action at Rospatent and before the IP Court on the administrative side, and an infringement action before the regional arbitrazh court on the civil side. Coordinating the sequencing and evidentiary record across both is one of the more technically demanding aspects of defending a Russian trademark portfolio.

For context on how administrative enforcement trends have developed in recent years, see Roskomnadzor enforcement trends and IP portfolio defence in Russia.

A Russian infringement claim is initiated by a statement of claim (исковое заявление) filed with the competent arbitrazh court. The statement must comply with procedural form requirements and must be accompanied by the complete evidence package at the point of filing — there is no discovery phase in the common-law sense, and the court will not compel the opposing party to produce documents unless specific statutory grounds apply.

The statement of claim must identify: the claimant (and confirm standing — a foreign company must document its legal status in its home jurisdiction, with a certified Russian translation), the infringing acts by reference to specific instances and dates, the marks at issue by registration number and class, the relief claimed, and the calculation or basis for any monetary claim. Pre-trial demand is a mandatory procedural step for most commercial disputes in Russia; filing a claim without first sending a pre-trial demand letter and allowing the statutory response period to elapse will result in the claim being returned without consideration.

The evidentiary standard in Russian IP proceedings is documentary. Witness evidence exists but carries less practical weight than in common-law systems. The most effective infringement evidence is: a notarised protocol of internet inspection confirming the infringing listing at a specific URL and date; a test purchase record; physical samples where the dispute concerns counterfeit goods; and expert conclusions on the similarity of the marks and the likelihood of consumer confusion, prepared by a qualified expert whose credentials the court can verify.

For those assessing the full strategic picture before filing, the article on strategic considerations in defending a Russian trademark portfolio covers the broader question of sequencing and forum choice in coordinated campaigns.

If your team is preparing to file an infringement claim in Russia — make an enquiry: info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp/Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76

Interim measures (обеспечительные меры) are available in Russian commercial proceedings on application to the court, and they can be significant: a court may prohibit the respondent from using the mark, order the seizure of infringing goods held in a warehouse or in customs clearance, or freeze specific assets. The applicant must satisfy two conditions: a credible case on the merits (prima facie, in practice) and a genuine risk that enforcement of any eventual judgment will be frustrated if measures are not granted.

Russian courts are not as ready to grant interim measures in IP cases as some foreign practitioners assume. The procedural threshold requires the applicant to identify the specific measures sought and provide evidence supporting both conditions — a general reference to infringement risk is not sufficient. Courts in some circuits apply the threshold more rigorously than others, and applications without supporting evidence are routinely refused. The applicant may be required to provide counter-security as a condition of interim relief.

Where interim measures are granted, they take effect immediately and are enforced by the court bailiff service (FSSP). For proceedings involving infringing goods in transit or in customs clearance, coordination with the Federal Customs Service — which maintains its own IP register — is often a faster and more effective tool than a court application, and should be considered as part of the initial enforcement strategy.

In the same matter referenced under Step 1, interim measures were sought to prevent the continued sale of counterfeit goods through an online marketplace. The application was granted after the claimant provided a notarised purchase record and a comparative expert conclusion. The goods were removed from listing within ten working days of the order being served on the marketplace operator.

A favourable judgment in an infringement action does not automatically bring the enforcement campaign to a close. Under Russian civil procedure, monetary awards are enforced through the FSSP pursuant to a writ of execution (исполнительный лист) issued by the court. Where the respondent is a legal entity, the writ may be submitted directly to the respondent's bank, which is required to execute it against the account balance — this is often the fastest route to recovery of a damages award.

Non-monetary relief — injunctions and prohibition orders — requires active monitoring. A court order prohibiting further use of a mark does not prevent a determined infringer from resuming activity under a different entity or on a different platform. In-house counsel should ensure that any monitoring arrangement in place before litigation continues after judgment, and that any breach of the injunction is reported promptly to the bailiff service and, where relevant, to the platform or marketplace on which the infringing activity occurs.

The portfolio record itself requires maintenance in parallel with enforcement. Following a successful infringement action, it is advisable to review and update the monitoring perimeter — particularly if the litigation revealed that the respondent had lodged confusingly similar applications in adjacent classes during the proceedings. Rospatent's online register allows real-time searches; a quarterly review schedule is a reasonable baseline for most portfolios.

For in-house counsel managing IP enforcement in Russia across multiple marks and classes, the post-judgment phase is the point at which an ad hoc enforcement approach most frequently breaks down. Building a durable enforcement programme requires the same procedural rigour applied to the litigation itself.

For a broader view of matters handled by the firm across IP enforcement mandates, see the Matters Hub.

To discuss a Russian trademark enforcement matter — make an enquiry: info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp/Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76

• Roskomnadzor enforcement trends and IP portfolio defence in Russia
• Strategic considerations in defending a Russian trademark portfolio
• IP Enforcement practice — Vetrov & Partners

Q: How long do Russian trademark infringement proceedings typically take from filing to first-instance judgment?

A: At first instance before a regional arbitrazh court, proceedings in a standard trademark infringement matter typically run from four to nine months from the date the claim is accepted for consideration. Complex matters — particularly those involving counterclaims for non-use cancellation or expert evidence contested by both parties — commonly extend beyond this range. The IP Court cassation stage, if pursued, adds a further several months. In-house counsel should factor these timelines into enforcement planning, particularly where interim measures are sought to bridge the period before judgment.

Q: Can a foreign company bring a trademark infringement claim in Russia directly, or must it act through a Russian entity?

A: A foreign legal entity has standing to bring an infringement claim in Russian commercial courts. However, a foreign claimant must be represented before the Russian court by a person with the right of audience — either a Russian advocate or, in some courts, a duly authorised employee of a Russian subsidiary. A power of attorney executed before a Russian notary is required, and the claimant's legal status in its home jurisdiction must be documented with certified translation into Russian. Foreign companies without a Russian subsidiary should instruct Russian IP counsel directly, who will manage procedural standing requirements.

Q: What happens if the respondent counters with a non-use cancellation claim against the claimant's trademark?

A: A respondent in infringement proceedings has the right to file a separate non-use cancellation action before the IP Court if the claimant's mark has not been used in Russia for a continuous three-year period. The cancellation proceedings run independently of the infringement claim but can be stayed by agreement or procedural application. If cancellation is granted, the infringement claim fails on standing. The practical defence is preparation: documented evidence of genuine use in Russia — invoices, advertising materials, delivery records — assembled before filing the infringement claim, not in response to the cancellation application. This is why the portfolio audit described in Step 1 is the non-negotiable first step.

Vetrov & Partners is a Russian boutique law firm established in 2009. The firm is recognised by Pravo-300 – Russia's principal legal directory – for eight consecutive years, and is listed as a trusted adviser by the German Consulate General in Novosibirsk.

The firm's IP Enforcement practice advises foreign trademark owners on infringement proceedings before Russian state courts and the IP Court, opposition and cancellation proceedings at Rospatent, anti-counterfeiting strategy, and the procedural requirements specific to foreign claimants operating in the Russian IP system. With over 1,000 matters handled since inception, the team provides direct partner-level involvement on every instruction.

Enquiries: info@vetrovpartners.com | WhatsApp / Telegram: +7 (983) 510-38-76 | t.me/vitvetcom

This publication is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice under Russian or any other applicable law. The information herein should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to your specific circumstances. Vetrov & Partners is a Russian-qualified law firm. For matters governed by foreign law or requiring local admission in another jurisdiction, we collaborate with trusted counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@vetrovpartners.com.

— Elizaveta Razina Senior Lawyer, Practice Lead — IP Enforcement, Vetrov & Partners vetrovpartners.com/razina/